Allowed

Manoj Kumar & Anr. v. Anil

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jan 2012CR/2323/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint. The court held that the plaintiff, despite claiming fraud and minority, sought a declaration regarding the entire sale deed involving him, triggering full court fee liability on the consideration. The trial court's order was set aside, and the application to reject the plaint was allowed su

What did the court decide?

Instant revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application to reject plaint allowed; respondent directed to pay ad valorem court fee within two months.

Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs Anil — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.2323 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.2323 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 06, 2012

¶5

Manoj Kumar & another

.... Petitioners

Versus

Anil

.... Respondent

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Dipinder Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Ashok Kataria, Advocate for respondent.

¶14

¶15

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Manoj Kumar and Manish Kumar defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar thereby dismissing application moved by the defendants under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint due to non-payment of ad valorem Court fee.

¶17

Respondent-plaintiff in the suit has challenged sale deed dated 10.05.2002 alleging that he did not execute it and if his thumb impression exists on it, it was obtained by fraud and he could not execute the sale deed being minor at that time.

¶18

Defendants in their application alleged that plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed.

¶19

CR No.2323 of 2011

¶20

-2-

¶21

However, plaintiff-respondent alleged that he is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration as he has merely sought declaration.

¶22

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the defendants' application. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant revision petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶24

file.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since respondent-plaintiff is party to the sale deed under challenge, he is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2807. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that respondent-plaintiff has not executed the impugned sale deed and was not competent to execute the same and therefore, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration. It was also contended that in the alternative, respondent-plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee only on his share and not on entire sale consideration of the sale deed because the sale deed was executed by four vendors i.e. Plaintiffrespondent and his mother, brother and sister.

¶26

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

¶27

The impugned sale deed purports to have been executed by plaintiff-respondent. He is thus party to the sale deed under challenge. Consequently in view of categorical proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh (supra), respondent-plaintiff is

¶28

CR No.2323 of 2011

¶29

-3-

¶30

liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deed.

¶31

As regards contention of counsel for respondent regarding payment of ad valorem court fee on share of respondent-plaintiff only, perusal of the plaint as shown by counsel for the petitioners reveals that although the respondent-plaintiff pleaded that he could not have executed the sale deed nor executed it, but he has sought declaration regarding the entire sale deed being invalid. Consequently, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the entire sale consideration recited in the sale deed. However, if the plaintiffrespondent restricts his claim to his share only, then he would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee on his proportionate share of the sale consideration.

¶32

In view of the above, instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court is set aside and application moved by defendants is allowed. Respondent-plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem court fee as per observations in the preceding paragraph. Necessary court fee be paid in the trial Court within two months from today failing which the plaint shall stand rejected.

¶33

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶34

06.01.2012 'raj'

Manoj Kumar & Anr. v. Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar & Anr. v. Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh Vs Balwinder Kaur and Ors.

Ravneet Bhatwa Vs Mala Bhatwa

Sumit Verma Vs Raj Paul Gulati & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Mohinder Singh

Ram Kishan Vs Man Singh & Ors.

Jastej Singh Chhina Vs Balwant Singh Sandhu & Ors.